Thank you, Minister, for being here, and for bringing all the interns.

My question reflects some of that, the difference between science and innovation, and maybe builds on Mr. Stewart's comments. Also, Mr. Jeneroux's comments around PEARL were, I think, very to the point as well.

We need to look at continuing to fund research. The innovation funding that we've put in place is one thing, but innovation doesn't start on its own. Before we have innovation, it needs science. I met with D-Wave yesterday. They're looking at quantum machine learning, machine learning like we've never seen, and they frankly don't know what it is and need to have some scientists play with quantum computers to figure out what the applications could be for quantum machine learning.

Last week we announced $1 million of innovation funding to Mirexus Biotechnologies in Guelph. They're looking for new uses of corn nanoparticles, which are new in themselves. I asked how many staff he has, and he said they have 30 staff there, but they have 15 researchers in various universities across North America who have been funded by our government. When we look at developing solutions that we don't even know where we're going with, we need scientists working and being curious in the background.

On the importance of science funding, as in the Naylor report, and the importance of long-term funding, as in the PEARL funding that we've been talking about, could you speak to the advocacy that you're doing with our government to maintain the focus on science funding separately from innovation funding?

In the very first budget we made a $2-billion investment in research and innovation infrastructure. That's an important investment, because much of the infrastructure was 25 years and older, but I've always been clear that buildings don't do research; people do. We have to invest in our researchers.

I've talked about the cuts that happened under the previous government—third to eighth, 18th to 26th—so we made the largest investment in our three federal granting councils in a decade in that first budget. Unlike the previous government, that was unfettered money, meaning it was not tied money.

I can talk about other large investments: the $950 million for the superclusters, the $900 million for the Canada first research excellence fund, $221 million.... You seem to have a question. I'll let you ask your question.

The role of the chief science advisor is something new to Canada. She's going to be playing a role in tying innovation and the interns you've brought with you who are working in innovation to the scientists who are in the labs right now. How is that role governed? What's the governance structure under the chief science advisor for us to make those very important ties between science and innovation?

I'm really delighted. We have a new chief science advisor. I'll let you know a bit of the process we took to get here.

It was the first major science consultation in 10 years. We wrote to the research community, we wrote to stakeholders, and we wrote to all parliamentarians so that people could feed in on what this position should look like. It came back very clearly that this should be a chief science adviser. Then we contacted the chief science advisers in Australia, Israel, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and we built a made-in-Canada position. Remember, this was a position that was cut by the previous government. We launched the search for the chief science advisor in December 2016.

Through our new, open, merit-based, transparent process, we have a new chief science advisor, and she's terrific. She is a prominent heart researcher. She's a former vice-president of research at the University of Ottawa. She has provided advice nationally and internationally. She's a member of the Order of Canada.

Her job is to provide the Prime Minister, me, and cabinet with scientific advice—to collate the best known information of the time, to bring it together, and provide that advice. It's our job to consider the science, evidence, and facts along with the other evidence we need to make decisions—regional development, economy, diversity, equity, and so on. It's an advisory role.

Quickly, Minister, you talk about the funding for the granting councils; however, there was no new funding in the 2017 budget. The Naylor report calls for increased funding for those. You've criticized our past government for boutique funding; however, you've invested in stem cells, space exploration, and quantum computing. I'm hoping that we'll see some more funding for these granting councils when it comes to the next budget.

I want to continue my question on PEARL and CHARS. In an interview with CBC you referred to the CCAR, the climate change and atmospheric research initiative, as a one-off to climate research. Can you elaborate on what was meant when you say “one-off”, as you also said it again here today?

For genomics it's $237 million, and this is because these are things that we're going to lead on in the future. If we want to transform medicine, it's regenerative medicine, precision medicine, quantum materials, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. Those really matter.

You asked about CCAR. Programs have a start date and programs sunset, so CCAR is coming to an end. I've asked my officials to work—

Back up a minute. CFCAS was something that we replaced with CCAR. That's where PEARL funding comes from. You've now said that CCAR is no longer going to be funded. You have provided no alternative to that. PEARL was about to sunset because of that, and again, until the eleventh hour you came in and left a bunch of these scientists curious as to what the alternative to this is. I've given you two opportunities now, Minister, to answer this question and you have yet to answer it.